Originally Posted by
East Hill
The law in Minnesota specifically mentions cyclists riding on the roadway or shoulder. I doubt that the lawmakers in Minnesota intended for motor vehicle drivers to have a loophole which would give said drivers immunity from prosecution simply because a cyclist was on the shoulder of a road, rather than the legally defined roadway.
Nevertheless, I could very well be wrong in my interpretation.
East Hill
I doubt that was the intention either. What is clear is how ambiguous right of way is when operating on the shoulder. Any mention of rights always seems to include that word "roadway" which as I pointed out, excludes the shoulder.
The defendant might be able to easily wiggle their way out of any responsibility by arguing that the OP should have yielded to him because the OP was operating on the shoulder and thus did not have any right of way. The law does not appear to ever state explicitly what special rights cyclists have while operating on the shoulder. All other drivers are excluded from operating on the shoulder so having the rights of a driver doesn't mean a thing once you leave the roadway.